200 years for child porn

[madmusic]

Just possession, no distribution or making and no physical contact at all. Just downloading and possessing.

A sentence of 10 years is a long time, this is 20 times that.

http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/09/might_berger_ge.html#comments

Too much?

[boolean]

1. If I go on LimeWire....

...and I download a file called "Over 18 year old banging her brains out.mpg", and it turns out to be child porn, and I delete it right away, but forget to delete the cached version....then what?

[Kagemusha]

Then you'd better not offend the powerful or live in Arizona.

Or both.

[pitohui]

12. then you're screwed

these laws basically exist so that anyone can be labled a child pornographer, it will make it easy to round up everyone who uses a computer that is for sure

it isn't just "cookies" that can be placed on your computer without your knowledge

we are all vulnerable to such accusations and as far as i have been able to discover, there is no real protection

[raysr]

2. Child porn is pretty

bad but this is just the beginning. You'll be doing 10 years for following too closely when the fundies take over.

[Der Blaue Engel]

3. This tells pedophiles that they'd be better off raping

than looking at pictures, since the sentences for that are so much less. What a disgusting justice system we have.

:mad:

[madmusic]

6. Hadn't thought of that. Good point. n/t

[purduejake]

4. Too much.

Go after the producers... and even then, we have murderers with 15 year sentences.

[Kagemusha]

5. To convict a man, prosecutors need to prove real children were harmed

If they had no problem proving that here, the sentence may be too long, but the guilt is not in question...

[madmusic]

8. He's guilty.

No question, and some of the pic were terrible.

It would be easier to understand and agree with if he made the porn. As is, this is more or less a thought crime.

Yes, someone harmed the children, but this man didn't.

[Kagemusha]

23. OK what I'm trying to explain is this...

All things being equal, you would be correct and I would agree with you. But in this day and age, there is such a strong link between the users and the despicable people who make these images and films TO FILL THE DEMAND THESE PEOPLE CREATE, that society and judges have not found it unreasonable to consider the consumer, who knows that possession of these images is illegal, an accomplice to the act. Now is 10 years minimum reasonable? Probably not.

Now, if it was drawn fictional characters - and such cases have come up when overzealous prosecutors try to bend the law vastly out of proportion to its natural limits - I would vehemently disagree because there is no direct link with children being harmed, which is the only reason valid society allows an exception to the principle of freedom of thought. It's a high bar. And while I can understand the distaste of punishing what seems to be thought crime, the "more or less" part bothers me, because I *know* that there is a direct link between the collector and the creator who fulfills the collector's demands. Worse, the collector is fully aware of this, because any serious child porn collector is well aware of his legal rights and perils.

[DireStrike]

32. "filling demand"

There is no commercial demand. Nobody wants to be caught buying or selling illegal materials, especially not when vast quantities of the material are available for free online, through many avenues where not even advertising revenue can be collected.

I find it interesting that you mention such a strong link between viewers and producers of child porn "in this day and age", when in fact any link is probably the weakest it has ever been due to anonymous methods of file sharing.

If there is no effective demand, and no direct contact, what link is there?

[madmusic]

34. We agree, to a point.

Everyone wants to see whoever made the porn pay the price, but do you really think whoever made it really cares if this guy got 200 years? Do you think that will stop him from making it? It is likely at best he will only stop filming the child rapes. You are also assuming he filmed it only to "fill the demand." How do we know that? I have no idea what a kiddie porn maker thinks, but doubt he films it only because someone might want to view it. If a for profit deal, then maybe, but this wasn't. It is the same kind of argument that says drug dealers might quit dealing if users get severe mandatory sentences. Why would dealers care?

The FBI says they don't distribute the faces of kiddie porn victims because of the risk to the child. The consequences are server enough that the perpetrator might kill the only witness.

Is it possible that the law is preventing the solution? Do we care more about punishment than we care about recovery of the child? If so, how much do we really care about the child when the abuse could be on-going?

What's more, as another poster pointed out, a sentence so severe might put children at MORE risk. Without knowing the statistics, I doubt a kiddie porn viewer would take it to direct victimization, though of course pedophiles who already molest would probably view kiddie porn. But that doesn't guarantee someone who only views it, like this guy, will act out on it. But if a sentence suggests the severity of the crime and outlines how bad it is, could someone think it better to actually victimize rather than viewing it?

I don't know, but do think this is not a well thought-out law and it could cause more harm than good.

Not to mention that it is most likely unconstitutional.

[Truthiness Inspector]

7. Why did you post this?

Why is this the second thread here tonight on the topic of minors and sex?

WTF is going on?

[madmusic]

9. I read law blogs and found it just now.

Or maybe it's a conspiracy. :)

[Truthiness Inspector]

10. And you posted it....because?

Of all the things you read, you picked this.

My opinion is that anyone convicted of being in possession of child pRon should be locked away for good. What is your position?

[madmusic]

14. You care because?

Why shouldn't I post it?

I believe the punishment should fit the crime.

[Truthiness Inspector]

18. So

what punishment do you think fits this crime?

[madmusic]

21. Like I said, 10 years is too much.

That is the maximum of ANY state. Any other state, and that is the most he could have got. He's a family man with children, a teacher with awards, no criminal record, and no evidence that he did anything other than thought crimes.

Possession of child porn is now a wobbler in California, meaning it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or felony, or as a felony as a second offense. That sounds more fair.

The man needs counseling with the support of his family.

EDIT: typo

[LostinVA]

27. I don't understand why you're attacking the OP for posting this

People on DU post all kinds of stuff, including child legal issues way "worse" than this.

And, since you seem to be demanding everything adhere to your child porn punishment standards or be suspect, I';lll tell you up front: child porn is sickening, and I think even digitalized images should be considered porn, but 200 years is an insane sentence, sort of murder or sexual assualt.

[sufrommich]

25. To prove

the republican smear that Democrats have no moral absolutes? Works for me.

[madmusic]

31. What does this mean?

And what does this post prove? The best guess would get this post removed for accusing the poster of being...

A ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" is a moral absolute, is it not? Or it was before the Repukes took control of the government.

[lutefisk]

11. Something is wrong with this picture

If possessing and viewing images calls for this sort of extreme punishment, should people who possess and view the Faces of Death/Traces of Death videos be in prison, too? Aren't there images of illegal acts of killing and murder present in those videos? One can purchase those on Amazon.com.

Of course anything that facilitates, encourages, affirms abuse, sexual or otherwise, of children is horrible. This particular case is disturbing because it resulted in such severe punishment, beyond the punishment handed out to many murderers, torturers, rapists, physical abusers, kidnappers, and others.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

13. 200 years is lenient

To view child porn, you must view pictures of a child that has been exploited in one of the worst ways possible. Child porn does not simply come to someone...it is oftentimes ordered. Ordered from someone who has it. To get it, that person has to exploit a child. Anyone in the chain of kiddie porn production, including the consumers, should be dealt with severely.

[madmusic]

15. He didn't buy it.

As the OP says, he merely downloaded it. Granted, the pics must be horrendous and why anyone would want them is beyond me, but that is not the point. He himself never harmed a child. Even 10 years would be excessive.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

16. Downloading it is advocating it.

Unless he can credibly prove that it was inadvertent, mistaken, or misleading, he is a consumer of child porn. No mercy.

[madmusic]

17. And advocating is a thought crime.

It is not direct victimization.

[mikelewis]

19. What part of cruel and unusual don't you get?

Yes... you can punish one of these idiots but let the punishment fit the fucking crime. 200 years? What fucking country are you from? Just getting caught and placed on probation will probably work in most cases... subjecting someone who is not charged with actually "touching" a minor or coercing a minor or even seeing the minor in any way other than a digital image, to life in prison is cruel and unusual. By any definition, it's cruel and unusual. Severe is public embarrassment, stiff fines, 12 months probation and mandatory counseling. 200 years is beyond cruel and unusual. The penal system is not supposed to be used for revenge... it's supposed to rehabilitate and correct anti-social behavior. What you call for is nothing less than evil. Shame on you.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

20. Yes...shame on me.

Whatever, dude. Shame on me.

[mikelewis]

22. Yes, shame on you...

There is something wrong with these people, that is true but something psychologically wrong that needs treatment... not a torturous existence with no chance of salvation. You invoke the name of the Lord in your name but have no reverence for his teachings? It was written, "Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy." Didn't the Lord want us to save our neighbor and show him mercy? Yet you call for revenge and damnation. Shame on you. You cannot do good by doing evil and you cannot do evil and serve the Lord.

... or maybe you don't really give a shit about Jesus and you're just hanging the name of the Lord around your identity to suit your own vanity. If that's the case and the religious argument doesn't hold any meaning for you... try this. It's un-fucking-constitutional. It's against everything this country stands for and makes a mockery of the rule of law. Shame on you... Have you no sense of decency? Un-fucking-believable.

[redherring]

26. Child molestors probably get 20 yrs jailtime at max

200 yrs for downloading child porn is just too extreme.

[Cruzan]

24. I can distinguish between a pediatrician performing an appropriate

medical examination on a five old girl and a child molester fondling her. What I'm having trouble with is seeing the difference between a criminal investigator, in the course of their work, viewing and possessing child pornography that was obtained as evidence again someone who was arrested for doing the same. How is the investigator not inflicting the exact same harm against the depicted child as the person first arrested?

[LostinVA]

28. I actually asked a cop this once, and they went bonkers on me

His answer: "Because I have the badge."

Although I think child porn is sickening, I do understand the point you're making, and agree.

[go west young man]

29. The sentence is ridiculous and makes a mockery of our legal system.

There was a story out a couple of weeks ago saying half the nations "so called Christians" struggle with porn including 20% of them being women. Anyone who looks at porn on the internet knows that you can end up with anything on your screen when your messing with porn. (Except me of course I would never look at porn. I just read Playboy for articles;) In my estimation we should jail half the screwed up country for at least 50 years. Unless they are a senators son with penchant for anal/broom molestation only. Links here: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060810/23609.htm

http://www.desertratdemocrat.com/archives/clifton_bennett/

[HamdenRice]

30. Weird question: What if you have a pic of an Iraqi child after a bombing?

I assume that "abuse" is not limited to sexual abuse, but physical abuse as well.

There are certain highly circulated pictures of a little Iraqi girl being pulled out of a bomb crater in Iraq. Isn't that a picture depicting actual abuse of a child? Will they be able to round people up who have viewed or downloaded that picture?

[SmokingJacket]

33. Users of an illegal product should be punished, but that's nuts.

I mean, possession of pot is not punished the same as the dealing of pot.

If I were the Queen of All, I would say a few years in prison, treatment, and a long probation.